theBastard wrote:there were Celts and Britons who ruled Isles after Romans withraw.

This is were the discussion came from. You said "after Romans withdraw". So that was the period I was thinking of.If we're talking about the time-period of this map, then the Romans were still in control, so I'm not quite sure what we would be discussing.

And yes, I would say that we "know" nothing (or practically nothing) of the facts of history in the dark ages in Britain.

theBastard wrote:there were Celts and Britons who ruled Isles after Romans withraw.

This is were the discussion came from. You said "after Romans withdraw". So that was the period I was thinking of.If we're talking about the time-period of this map, then the Romans were still in control, so I'm not quite sure what we would be discussing.

no, the discusion came from my point that Angles invasion to England in this time period is a-historical...

tokle wrote:And yes, I would say that we "know" nothing (or practically nothing) of the facts of history in the dark ages in Britain.

no, there is enough records. and maybe they said truth more as Romans records, which were converting by those who ruled.

theBastard wrote:there were Celts and Britons who ruled Isles after Romans withraw.

This is were the discussion came from. You said "after Romans withdraw". So that was the period I was thinking of.If we're talking about the time-period of this map, then the Romans were still in control, so I'm not quite sure what we would be discussing.

no, the discusion came from my point that Angles invasion to England in this time period is a-historical...

Yes. And I said that I thought it was within reason to include Angles here. I still do.

theBastard wrote:

tokle wrote:And yes, I would say that we "know" nothing (or practically nothing) of the facts of history in the dark ages in Britain.

no, there is enough records. and maybe they said truth more as Romans records, which were converting by those who ruled.

Here again we were talking about different times.

The Romans were fond of records. The Roman period is pretty well documented. I don't know how biased they would have been as sources, but they would definitely be infinitely more accurate than Gildas or Bede or the Anglo-Saxon chronicles.

Last edited by tokle on Fri Jan 07, 2011 8:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

tokle wrote:The Romans were fond of records. The Roman period is pretty well documented. I don't know how biased they would have been as sources, but they would definitely be infinitely more accurate than Gildas or Bede or the Anglo-Saxon chronicles.

why? Romans knew propaganda and did it very well it is long time ago when I worked on any project about Dark Age Britain. and believe me I found much, much good records and informations.

EDIT: I think we could end this debate here. it is off map (graphics or gameplay...)

Industrial Helix wrote:I think i favor the second version, but only if you put the same painting texture that you used int he first example. Red is more Roman to me.

Out of curiosity... what's the logic behind having two Barbarian spaces instead of one?

Originally I intended to have only 1 space - The Barbarian Tribes. But after much consideration on the subject I ended realizing that might a good idea to have a second line from where you could retake the 'Base Tribe' - It would make it harder for the emperor to control these points from his seat.

From those 'Augustus', you'll have to send troops to the tribe to then take the second line - it would be too easier to just clear them from the seat itself without having to move any troops

Kabanellas wrote:As for the barbarian tribes that should be included here, I think we should keep the more representative ones even if they might be a little 'offside' in this time-scope.

Like I said before: this map is not totally restrained to a closed period in Europe and Roman History - the players will make their own History

I agree with this method for the Barbarians... but I wonder if maybe Scots would do better for where the Saxons currently are and I'd like to see the Alamanni as one of the tribes... after all, its where half of Europe gets the word German from.

Okay this map is due for a bump... and review (sorry for the delay Kab)

First, let me say that this map is beautiful as always, epic as always, and the history engrossing as always.

That said, the gameplay may be your most ambitious yet, although it may only seem that way to me because of my problems reading the legend In fact after reading, re-reading and finally getting some guidance from Kab via PM I'm fairly certain that the gameplay framework itself is solid. The details, such as placements, can be debated later, but primarily I think the bulk of the work for this forum will be organizing the legend.

On that note, here are my concerns about the legend:(1) The Text is not easy on my eyes. When there's a big block of text, such as in the lower left section or the upper right about the Emperor, the font becomes a real chore to read. Every single letter in the font is actually quite legible, but when it all comes together- particularly on the small map- it seems like someone shouting in all caps in a long paragraph. I like complex maps, but every time I read this legend I feel a sense of dread similar to searching for abbreviations in Waterloo (luckily I've memorized all of those).

Solution: Reducing the number of words would certainly ease my textaphobia. The font itself, well I'm no font expert as anyone can attest but maybe there's something out there that would work better...

(2) The Bonuses are written out in long sentences, and refer to places on the map that aren't readily identifiable for me. For instance, when I read that Diocese Capitals one way assault their respective Vicarious in the Roman Government, I honestly didn't see a Vicarious for quite some time. I looked up above and the word 'Vicarious' was lost in the fog of all that was up there. So I looked on the lands, in other corners... no dice. Having to go on safari for the name of a bonus will happen from time to time in any complex map, but usually I'll know at least the general area to look in (such as the land, other parts of the legend, etc.). In this case the words "Roman Government" might have given me a clue, except that I wasn't sure if the phrase referred to an actual part of the map or just flavor text (the Roman Government label I didn't notice until my sixth look at the map).

Solution: Again reducing the text so that the bonuses appear more as a list would help enormously. I think most CC players are used to digesting bonuses that way, and I think there are places where this could be acheived.Also, since the bonus text will refer to different parts of the map often, I think using the symbols as much as possible will aid tremendously. The Third Crusade map used symbols to good effect for a huge laundry list of bonuses. In this map, the Diocese symbol was very helpful- I immediately identified the two areas of text that talked about Diocese Capitals. But the Emperor, the Praetors, the Vicarus... they get lost without any color or symbol to draw the eye.

(3) The Roman Government has this cool background which unfortunately just makes the font even harder to read. And the red text in particular starts to blend in.

Well this post was more wordy than I wanted it to be, but it's late so it will have to stand as is. Sorry for all of the words.

the big part of what you stated here (very valid concerns I might add) belong to the graphics part and I would feel more comfortable of leaving that study for when we settled the gameplay - I'm used to see things changing a lot and graphics become outdated due to game-play changes...

Anyway, I think that you've touched a good point with the icon/symbols part - that would be very helpful on comprehending the map. I'll get my hands dirty now and try to find a viable solution for that.

I think you need to spread the Barb tribes out more or get rid of Sassanid or add Muslim/N/ African tribes. All of the Barb tribes are in Europe and right on top of each other while Sassanid stands by itself. Seems a bit unbalanced there.

jigger1986 wrote:Just release it now! It looks incredible and I cant wait to play it.

This map is unfortunately not going anywhere until it has met the gameplay standard. Broadly speaking, that means:(1) Clear framework that ties into concept(2) Balance(3) Clarity

Once these three general criteria are met, you will have your wish Jigger. If you want this map to move along, please comment in any or all of the above areas, with critique that either analyzes, supports or rejects certain aspects of the map as it stands.

In other words, to keep this map from languishing, be specific. If you like the map, tell the community what specfically (gameplay-wise) you like about the map and why you think it meets or exceeds the criteria above. As it stands, the lack of specific community feedback- positive or negative- has me feeling that the gameplay isn't clear enough to comment upon, which means that number (3) in the above list needs work. The historical and artistic aspects of the map are attractive, but without gameplay that is not merely functional, but high-quality, it's just not going to go forward.

Kabanellas wrote:the big part of what you stated here (very valid concerns I might add) belong to the graphics part and I would feel more comfortable of leaving that study for when we settled the gameplay - I'm used to see things changing a lot and graphics become outdated due to game-play changes...

Understandable that you don't want to make many graphical changes if the gameplay will mutate wildly

However, my biggest concern, and what will probably continue to be a concern until it's addressed in a significant fashion, is clarity. The gameplay must be clear for this map to get a stamp. The things that I brought up were intended largely to that end.

Nola_Lifer wrote:I think you need to spread the Barb tribes out more or get rid of Sassanid or add Muslim/N/ African tribes. All of the Barb tribes are in Europe and right on top of each other while Sassanid stands by itself. Seems a bit unbalanced there.

I share this worry as well. I'm not a huge fan of how the Barbarian tribes are all going to get into each other's hair right away, except one. Personally I'd like to see them more spread out, but history also plays a part here... still I think there are historical incursions that could be included that might serve this purpose, if the idea worked with the concept that Kabs has in mind.